Did China learn from mistakes made by S'pore Temasek ?
-
Not to diminish the relevance of your post, because it is. But the key thing to note here is that Atobe is basing his arguments on flawed mathematical calculations. This fact needs to be driven home hard.Originally posted by teraexa:Now let's think, if Temasek Holdings was a private ecompany, would Atobe screw it for having such a financial performance even though he is a shareholder of that company?
Sometimes, we view public companies with a pair of glasses and private companies with a different pair of untinted glasses.
He's making it sound like a big loss was made when there was actually a realisation of profit. -
Since there is a transparency issue here and you admit there was one - how is anyone to know if there is a realisation of profit or a realisation of loss?Originally posted by deathbait:Not to diminish the relevance of your post, because it is. But the key thing to note here is that Atobe is basing his arguments on flawed mathematical calculations. This fact needs to be driven home hard.
He's making it sound like a big loss was made when there was actually a realisation of profit.
What facts? Nobody is given open facts unless you have access to the accounting books of Temasek Holdings - every single detail.
Everything else are speculation as far as I am concerned. Shin Corp , Optus, Telkomsels are facts because they are publicised losses. How many unpublicised losses are there? Nobody knows. What is the true profit margin? Nobody knows.
As for your banker statement , I will fire my banker if he does not open up my accounts at MY request.Originally posted by deathbait:investments gone south yes. mistakes maybe. But to be objective, you have to balance it.
You won't fire your banker because he lost 10% of your portfolio on 3 investments, but made a profit of 20% total in that year. There are wins, and there are losses.
Sure the information released is incomplete. Sure it's not as transparent as we would want. But that's all the more reason to not jump to conclusions over a few published cases. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
A person who is mean to his/her family members and friends wont treat other ppl with sincerity.Same as the government,a government who is mean to their own ppl wont treat other countries with sincerity.
[b]Singapore has a long way to go before this Singapore Government will be generous towards our neighbors, as generosity has yet to begin at home - as seen in the poor attitude of this Government towards the aged Singaporean community.
[/color]
Our neighbouring countries already keep their watchful eyes on how our PAP government treat his own countrymen.Thats why they already know the wickedness,selfish and arrogant character of our PAP leaders.They see how the PAP leaders meanly treated his own ppl,so when our GLC companies invest in their countries,they are wary of them.
Our PAP leaders thought they can fool the world,but in the end,it is our PAP leaders who get fooled!!!!
P.S. Stupid Lee Kuan Yew,Lee Hsien Loong(nickname Siao Ah Loong),Boot-licker Goh Chok Tong(nickname also Boot-licker
) -
LKY had cruxified others for lesser faults despite years of loyal service.Originally posted by deathbait: 1 December 2007 12.03 PM
i'm beginning to suspect you're deliberately misusing quote tags just so others have difficulty quoting you.
Anyway, your point of a reduction of profits is ridiculous. It's hardly a loss when the net PROFIT drops.
Atobe, to even begin to start sounding credible again, you need to realise your evaluation of the numbers were wrong, and recalculate them again. I'm not sure how often gazelle has it wrong, but this time, he has you by the horns.
His reasoning is sound. Yours on the other hand, is not.[/quote]
Has Gazelle got me by the horns ?
That is only his vain dream, and your own mistaken perception from a flawed point of view - especially when you are not certain of the infamous Gazelle antics.
Why will you suspect that I have deliberately misuse the quote tags to prevent others from quoting my posts ?
Is this your excuse in not putting an effort to work on your views ?
In LIFE, can anything and everything be presented in some neat and orderly manner that meets with your own personal expectation - always ?
In my exchange with CX in the other thread ''Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov'' - CX and I have no difficulty in quoting each of our posts even as we presented our respective replies by breaking up entire passages into individual issues that were seemingly important to be clear. {See our exchange on Page 3 of the referenced thread dated 13 Nov 2007 12.01 PM onwards}
Gazelle's calculated reasoning was not erroneous, except that his interpretation of my position was wrong - as he did not read the manner in which I had posted my sentences with words purposefully and carefully chosen that sought clarification, as much as pressing in the same general direction.
I had hoped that you were able to discern this fact in stating that you had been able ''to read between the lines'' - evidently you did not.Originally posted by deathbait: 1 December 2007 12.40 PM
investments gone south yes. mistakes maybe. But to be objective, you have to balance it.
You won't fire your banker because he lost 10% of your portfolio on 3 investments, but made a profit of 20% total in that year. There are wins, and there are losses.
Sure the information released is incomplete. Sure it's not as transparent as we would want. But that's all the more reason to not jump to conclusions over a few published cases.
What makes you think that the banker only lost 10% of the portfolio with only 3 investments ?
Even in a private enterprise, the CEO of Citibank was forced to quit on one single Sub-prime issue despite his sterling records over the years leading Citibank.
What makes you think that Temasek's dealings with PUBLIC MONEY should be treated with more generosity ?
[quote]Originally posted by deathbait: 1 December 2007 07.56 PM
Not to diminish the relevance of your post, because it is. But the key thing to note here is that Atobe is basing his arguments on flawed mathematical calculations. This fact needs to be driven home hard.
He's making it sound like a big loss was made when there was actually a realisation of profit.Somehow, in your own inflated view of your position as an observer without committing your own position on this subject until this event occurred, you have the audacity to pass judgement on the views that others dare to publicly post.
How relevant are your views in your flawed responses to everyone's stated positions, when we have at least given you the courtesy to give your unsolicited criticism made in such a condescending tone ?
The mathematical calculation itself was not flawed, but its outcome depended on the correct interpretation of the '2 percent paring' - which was offered as a question.
In your own anxiety to hit the nail on the head, have you considered the fact that it was reported that - the current high level of divestment activities from China's state owned banks is an attempt by Temasek at window dressing, after its public statement reported in an earlier August 2007 Reuter's article - ''Temasek reported a 29 percent drop in net profit to S$9.1 billion ($6 billion) for its 2006/07 financial year, from S$12.8 billion a year ago, on lower divestment gains and an impairment charge on Thai telecoms firm Shin Corp , which lost one third of its stock market value during the period''.
The fact remains that with so many years of non-transparent disclosures, and so many attempts at window dressing the Annual Reports prior to the Financial Year coming to a close - how certain can anyone of us be that Temasek will come up on top of all the losses ?
Until a full and complete transparent public audit is carried independently, how will you know that Singaporean funds are in safe hands ?
From the declaration made by the PRC Government in setting the goals for its own China Investment Corporation in managing its own cash reserves - which was reportedly recently to have reached USD1 TRILLION - it clearly shows that it has seen the flaws with the manner that Temasek is being managed.
Even the political model of a strong ONE PARTY RULE that Singapore has offered is not accepted by the PRC Government. -
Atobe, maybe you should consider giving up talking about numbers because there is no second guessing when you deal with quantifiable discussion.Originally posted by Atobe:[/color]
Considering that Temasek was able to achieve US$571.5 Million by selling only a 2 percent stake, do you think that if the entire stake of 10% amounting to US$3.1 Billion can be recovered ?
The 2 percent stake represent only One-Fifth of the 10% stake, if the entire 10% stake is sold for the same price - Temasek would have recovered only US$2.86 Billion from an investment that it paid US$3.1 Billion.
And my advice is that, before you shoot, please take some time to understand what you are talking about and dont always assume the Temasek are as dumb an investor as you think.
Temasek sold only 9.4% of its 5.1% stake in BOC for US$571.5m, which means their total 5.1% stake in BOC is now worth US$5.5b. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Atobe, again, I suggest you stop playing with numbers because it will only make you look more like a noisy trumpet!!
[/color]
For the first time, it is now learnt that we paid US$1 Billion for a 5.9 per cent stake - how should we understand the meaning of [b]''paring 2 percent of a 5.9 percent stake'' ?
Is it correct to read that this reduction of 2% is almost a 50% reduction from an original stake of 5.9 percent stake in China Construction Bank ?
If the sale of 2 percent shares is worth only US$255 miilion, and with this 2 percent being almost half of the 5.9 percent stake ?
Are we ahead with the original investment paid ?
Do not let the loud and noisy trumpets shroud common sense.
[/b]
The news report is saying that it represents 2% of Temasek total holding in the CCB bank, not 2% of CCB.
do not let the loud and noisy trumpets shroud common sense -
Atobe, this is not a name calling competition, so there is not need to be so hostile here...
China Construction Bank
Total shares in the market : 220,000 million shares
Total shares Temasek was holding : 5.9% = 12,980 million shares
Total shares Temasek sold : 280 million shares = 2.16% of 12,980 m shares for US$255m
Are we ahead with the original investment paid ?
Atobe, if you need help with the calculation, please let us know. -
you realise of course that the only thing neccessary for you to lose this argument is the fact that you do not have all the details. And this is exactly what you're saying here.Originally posted by fymk:Since there is a transparency issue here and you admit there was one - how is anyone to know if there is a realisation of profit or a realisation of loss?
What facts? Nobody is given open facts unless you have access to the accounting books of Temasek Holdings - every single detail.
Everything else are speculation as far as I am concerned. Shin Corp , Optus, Telkomsels are facts because they are publicised losses. How many unpublicised losses are there? Nobody knows. What is the true profit margin? Nobody knows.
The onus is not on me to prove to you that Temasek is losing money. You are the one assuming Temasek is making huge losses. It's on you to give me accurate figures to convince me. And by admitting you don't have the details, the argument is as good as lost.
I must repeat this though. Whether Temasek makes or loses money has nothing to do with you. Like most people bashing Temasek on this forum, you're under the illusion that you are a shareholder. That is not true. Only under the most extreme of conditions will any effect on Temasek's portfolio affect you at all.As for your banker statement , I will fire my banker if he does not open up my accounts at MY request.
I too will fire my banker if he opens my accounts to the people who pay me a regular wage. And that's all you are to Temasek. You're not a client. You're someone who's obliged by law to pay a annual wage to the client. -
wow ok i was trying to stop you from looking silly, but if that's how it's going to be, here goes. By the way, you must be taking lessons from Andrew. This is the exact kind of denial he goes into when faced with proof.
Details!Has Gazelle got me by the horns ?
yes, yes he has. His math here is infinitely more sound than yours. If you read my previous posts, you would have understood where you went wrong.That is only his vain dream, and your own mistaken perception from a flawed point of view - especially when you are not certain of the infamous Gazelle antics.
I don't have to know how Gazelle used to act, because I spotted your error independently. It's wrong. Just look at it.Why will you suspect that I have deliberately misuse the quote tags to prevent others from quoting my posts ?
Probably because you did it twice in a row on posts you were destined to be rebutted on?Is this your excuse in not putting an effort to work on your views ?
No, that's my complaint. Notice I still went ahead and tried to point out kindly why you were wrong. But hey, gloves are off now since you requested it(rather unkindly btw)In my exchange with CX in the other thread ''Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov'' - CX and I have no difficulty in quoting each of our posts even as we presented our respective replies by breaking up entire passages into individual issues that were seemingly important to be clear. {See our exchange on Page 3 of the referenced thread dated 13 Nov 2007 12.01 PM onwards}
You will of course agree with me that this has no relevance as to whether you botched up the quoting in the two long posts before. You may have passed primary school math years ago, but you still screwed up a simple problem sum here on this thread.Gazelle's calculated reasoning was not erroneous, except that his interpretation of my position was wrong - as he did not read the manner in which I had posted my sentences with words purposefully and carefully chosen that sought clarification, as much as pressing in the same general direction.
Actually if you scroll up a little, I redid your calculations based on your interpretation(which is obviously wrong btw, but more on that later) and revealed how even with your interpretation, your math was still wrong.
I had hoped that you were able to discern this fact in stating that you had been able ''to read between the lines'' - evidently you did not.What makes you think that the banker only lost 10% of the portfolio with only 3 investments ?
I don't. Just like you don't know if he made a net profit of 20% in the end. But like i said, the onus is on you to develop the argument. And without any real information, all you're sprouting is pure fiction.Even in a private enterprise, the CEO of Citibank was forced to quit on one single Sub-prime issue despite his sterling records over the years leading Citibank.
Public vs Private. Job security. We know the drill. Need i say more?
What makes you think that Temasek's dealings with PUBLIC MONEY should be treated with more generosity ?Somehow, in your own inflated view of your position as an observer without committing your own position on this subject until this event occurred, you have the audacity to pass judgement on the views that others dare to publicly post.
In the reality that I live in, we do not consider mathematical answers "views". They are facts. Which alternate dimension did you say you came from again?How relevant are your views in your flawed responses to everyone's stated positions, when we have at least given you the courtesy to give your unsolicited criticism made in such a condescending tone ?
math is wrong, your point goes the same way. When I point out your terrible math errors, that's pretty relevant. Considering your answer happens to be on the opposite side of zero compared to the actual answer. (by the way, see how hard it is to understand posts when they're written this way?)The mathematical calculation itself was not flawed, but its outcome depended on the correct interpretation of the '2 percent paring' - which was offered as a question.
According to my dictionary, which I can only assume is VERY different from the one you brought over from the beyond, there is only one interpretation of "2 percent paring". It means '2 percent, a sliver'. How you can compare that with "almost 50%" is beyond me. Ever seen a big sliver? That's because it doesn't exist.
Also, look at it again. Your math calculation was wrong, whatever the interpretation was. 2 out of 5.9 is not even remotely close to 50%.In your own anxiety to hit the nail on the head, have you considered the fact that it was reported that - the current high level of divestment activities from China's state owned banks is an attempt by Temasek at window dressing, after its public statement reported in an earlier August 2007 Reuter's article - ''Temasek reported a 29 percent drop in net profit to S$9.1 billion ($6 billion) for its 2006/07 financial year, from S$12.8 billion a year ago, on lower divestment gains and an impairment charge on Thai telecoms firm Shin Corp , which lost one third of its stock market value during the period''.
Not sure if you understand the phrase "drop in net profit". That means Temasek isn't in the red. Because I understand how investments work before i make silly posts way out of my league, I also understand what a stop loss or profit realization is. Another advantage of mine is that due to the common sense I happen to be in possession of, I understand there is no need for Temasek to hide the fact that they are still making money. To hear you speak, any investment that loses money in the short run is doing something wrong.The fact remains that with so many years of non-transparent disclosures, and so many attempts at window dressing the Annual Reports prior to the Financial Year coming to a close - how certain can anyone of us be that Temasek will come up on top of all the losses ?
Temasek investments are none of your business. Unproven alleged "attempts at window dressing". I think that covers it in the least amount of words necessary.Until a full and complete transparent public audit is carried independently, how will you know that Singaporean funds are in safe hands ?
I urge you to understand how funds work before talking about transparency.From the declaration made by the PRC Government in setting the goals for its own China Investment Corporation in managing its own cash reserves - which was reportedly recently to have reached USD1 TRILLION - it clearly shows that it has seen the flaws with the manner that Temasek is being managed.
OR, it could mean that they are a different country with different goals. Or maybe the PRC government is run in a different manner. Or maybe their economic status is vastly different from Singapore's.
Seriously, which is more plausible? My alternatives, or your interpretation? Keep in mind Temasek is currently PROFITABLE.Even the political model of a strong ONE PARTY RULE that Singapore has offered is not accepted by the PRC Government.
This point of yours puzzles me. The monarchy rule of britain was not supported by the americans. They even fought a war over it. I guess that proves Britain should be in shambles today.
What exactly were you trying to say here? The PRC government is suddenly the expert in governance? -
Well, let's settle the issue once and for all.
Whoever thinks that Temasek Holdings is not being transparent, please do engage any or all of the big 4 accounting firms (ie KPMG, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu) and do a thorough audit. Of course, you pay for the auditing process lar.
Until we have the full facts and figures, what we are arguing here is just based on an incomplete set of data. There's no point extrapolating conclusions from such a limited set of data as extrapolation is inherently flawed by itself.
Unless we have a full set of facts and figures, what everyone here is arguing about amounts to little more than hot air.
And one last point I wish to make, although Temasek Holdings is a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), I do not wish to judge it by the sovereignty it is created by. Rather, when judging such SWFs, including others like Norway Pension Fund, Dubai International Capital, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority etc, we should just it based on its financial performance and just financial performance alone.
There is really no point basing your judgement of such SWFs on the type of government it represents. After all, an autocratic government with less-than-ideal transparency does not necessarily mean that it manages its wealth badly. -
Other soverign funds will be more than happy to experience
''problems of 'Temasek----
how $1 become $128 in 33 years.....
Temasek experience some problems in recent yeras.
But tell me which investments dunt come with problems or loss?
Look for long term and track records.
Total Shareholder Return,% BY MARKET VALUE AND SHAREHOLDER FUNDS
Tell me which funds can or stock can dive you this returns,in 33 years consistently.
Oh Dear!Our money is still in good hands.This money is not just for
you,but for your kids and grand children,if u reproduce......
Pl note the %here is compound interest.
average compound annual return 17 % for good 33 years!!
By rule of 72,your investment would be double in 72/17 years,ie about 4 years.
A 17% average compound annual return for 33 years
means if u invest $1 33 years ago,it will become $128 today
gross,before calculate inflation etc.NOT BAD AT ALL.
2.U need to pay banana ,not peanut,to attract good
fund managers to manage and make them not to be
corrupted.
But CSJ will tell you that he will not be short of people
who just ask for low pay to manage Billions fund.
They will come forward to serve Singapore.
They will do it for national services,not for $$$$.
3.Call me.I will PAY to Temasek to manage their funds.
Will u trust me? -
what they said
-
Temasek's investments would double in 5 years time. please migrate out.
